Now here's were it gets interesting. Of the 435-member House, 132 members did not vote! (I don't think they even showed up that day.)

Dems not voting - 80Reps not voting - 52

Let's imagine for a moment that the Democrats in the House decided to stand up for the disenfranchised voters of Ohio and all of them showed up for work and voted together. This is what the results would have looked like:

This could have been a MAJOR "January Surprise" that would have been one of the most glorious moments in Democratic Party history.

Now I'm sure that even if the Democratic Congresspeople had done their sworn duty, shown up for work and worked together... the Republicans would have regrouped later on in the day and made sure that Bush would continue to be President. But at the very least the Democrats would have had the leverage to demand that in 2006 ALL VOTING MACHINES WOULD HAVE A VERIFIABLE PAPER BALLOT!

Instead, the Democrats in congress decided to roll over; obviously taking the lead from Kerry's example back on November 3rd.

Even basic math shows how broken the Democratic Party is. This is not the same party that pulled us out of the Depression, won two world wars and championed the working person. The current Democratic Party is an empty shell of it's former glory.

the house vote regards accepting the ohio electors as it pertains to the presidential race.the senate vote regards accepting the ohio electors as it pertains to the vice-presidential race.this is one of several constitutional holdovers from the days when the prez and veep races were not joined to the same ticket.

in any event, the math in indeed interesting. however, unless an elaborate trap is laid, all the reps basically know who (or at least how many) votes are showing up. so, if all the democrats were actually planning to show up and vote no, then the banana republicans would have all shown up as well.

as i said, unless a very elaborate trap is laid.

besides, even if the trap worked and the banana republicans were caught off guard, they simply would have found some way to delay the vote until more banana republicans could return to washington.

Imagine the long-term political capital that would have been gained! Imagine how foolish the Republican leadership would have looked!

Democrats have co-ordinated the invasion of Normandy, put a person on the moon and lead the Civil Rights movement. This would have been doable. In fact, not even EVERY Democrat would have been necessary. Kerry could have stayed in Iraq, Lieberman could have been left out of the loop and the Republicans would still have egg on their collective faces.

If the shoe were on the other foot, this is exactly what the Republicans would have done.

They care about getting re-elected, and taking a position that a majority of their constituents either know little about or oppose is not in their interests. You are asking them to take a position that would almost certainly cost them their jobs. Also, you are assuming that most agree with you on the election. I can guarantee you that isn't the case. It's not a coincidence that most of those who stood up were African-Americans. Those congresspeople have significantly different constituencies than the rest of Democrats. African-Americans are the most loyal Democratic voters. As this board demonstrates hundreds of times each day, whites are not nearly as loyal supporters of Democratic representatives. What occurred Thursday was historic. The first time since 1878 a slate of electors was opposed and a debate took place. We need to congratulate the politicians who did stand up. Of course more might have voted yea. It's also possible that tomorrow Bush would suddenly have a revelation about the war, withdraw all our troops and resign, confessing he is the worst president in American history. Virtually anything is possible. That doesn't mean it will ever happen.

And winning requires imagination, guts, cooperation and a moral center. The current Democratic party leadership has none of those qualities.

I disagree that it would have cost them their jobs. It sickens me to know that there were Senators who genuinely thought that people were disenfranchised, yet voted to keep their jobs instead of defending the sanctity of the vote. People like that have no business in government... let alone in the Democratic Party.

said they were opposing a corrupted election process rather than Bush's victory? Do you think they were lying? Could they actually have been telling the public how they feel on the matter? Taking a tough stand on positions is important, but politicians need to believe in the stand they take. My guess is very few agree with yours on this particular issue. What you are saying is that despite the fact the majority of American voters belief Bush was rightfully elected, the Dem's should have stood up to affirm your point of view over the rest of their constituents. It is possible they might survive electoral losses on the issue, but there is no doubt most Americans would have opposed their actions. I think the Black Caucus has it right on this issue. Democracy is far more important than if John Kerry won. He didn't even bother to turn up to vote. Why should the rest of the House and Senate have stuck their necks out for him? Let's focusing on cleaning up the electoral process. All the time you spent calculating the above scenario could be devoted to effecting change. Join with the members on this thread to put your outrage into constructive action.

I don't think they could have won the vote, while it would have been theoretically possible. I'm pointing out that they didn't even try. Furthermore, the fight would have brought concessions from the Republicans to make sure that this kind of problem will not happen again.

Thursdays vote was one of the most important in American history. If ever there was a time to make a stand for disenfranchised voters, it was then.

Think of it this way, imagine paying a lawyer to represent you in court. Instead of fighting for you, he reasons: "Well, her case is hopeless and I've already been payed. Taking a nap during the hearing would be a better use of my time."

I vote for Democrats because I used to believe that when the cookies were on the table, the Democratic Party would step up to the challenge. January 6th proved to me that most incumbents are part of the problem.

and it's a good one. The Democrats do need to learn how to take a stand. Unlike you, I see January 6 as somewhat encouraging, because I expected nothing. I figured if no Senator stood up in 2000, no one would this year. I was thrilled to be wrong. I think it's up to us to force the party to represent us. I fear they've gotten the wrong message from the election, thinking they need to play it closer to the "center" (based on various statements on abortion policy). I hope I'm wrong, but ultimately it's up to us to start to change things from the bottom up. Election reform is my first priority. Without that, nothing else is possible.

I absolutely agree with you. I think there are many of them who have no

idea how easily tabulators can be rigged. And when I hear them say "not enough to change the result" my concern is exactly what you say; that they don't get that it was stolen once again, so they are thinking they need to play closer to center, figure out what their message needs to be, etc. etc. There is a huge amount of educating that needs to happen.

not by a conspiracy that involved the Democratic BoE officials (the main debunking talking point i recall among Repug seantors on Thurs) but because he was the tiebraker in disputed where the 2 Dems and the 2 RepugnantOnes disagrees. I was it in my county, which was the only county I know of where the Board agreed to select recount precincts on a random basis. There were many classes of ballot, and many decisions ended in a tie, with one party choosing to count votes and the other taking the other position. Guess which candidate Blackwell's tie-breaking decisions favored. 11 per precinct? Easy. (not to say there wasn't ballot stuffing, electronic tampering, and massive vote suppression.

27. You OH folks must feel a lot of kinship with FL voters. That argument

that the Dem BOE officials would have had to be in on the theft is so lame. Yes, even based on Blackwell alone, as you say. Then we have the Triad guy coming out and saying openly that they can access the tabulators remotely. That is no Dem X-files conspiracy theory. The Triad guys said it themselves...Who needs the Dem BOE officials? So Kerry and all the other Dem congress people who say not enough evidence to change the outcome...as I said, Dem leadership are all math challenged except maybe a few of the reps. How many of them who spoke said "not enough to change the outcome" ? Cobb and Badnarik, on the other hand, seem to be able to do simple arithmetic, as does Arnebeck. What we need is more congress people who can do math.

You don't get it. On January 6th you lost 2006, 2008, 2010 and on and on.

I'm not saying that the Dems WOULD have won, or they COULD have won, or they SHOULD have won. I'm saying that by not trying to fight, they have doomed the party and probably killed Democracy in this country.

"Better to save our energies and fight another day" goes the excuse. But I just showed that if the DNC had used a modicum imagination and stuck to their principles the Republicans would have faced a lion instead of a mewling kitten.

By their inaction, the congressional Democrats have given a template to the Republicans on how to disenfranchise voters and get away with it.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.